Component Quality

[R.G.]

Who's to say that the amps that are IN-tolerance are the best-sounding ones? I don't know that you could ever qualify something like this.

Way back when the first web wars were being fought over amp sound, I tried to get a number of people to blueprint their amps.

The word "blueprinting" comes from the hot rod/performance automotive niche where it referred to taking an engine and machining every single dimension to exactly the perfect size.

I was advocating the reverse - take an especially good sounding amp, and go measure every single component with precision. The idea was, of course, to take the "great tone" reputation, and reverse engineer it into information about what made those circuits sound good.

I still think it's a worthwhile course of study, but no one will cooperate with it, so I don't see it being pursued.

Sigh. Another good idea all shot to hell by having to have people do the work.

[Chuck H]

FWIW, that WAS my point. It could be the extreams of the specs that are responsible for the best and worst examples. We, as designer/builders would like to know why... But I have yet to get someone with a truely great sounding examle of a vintage amp to allow me to tear it down

Truth is that with those old black fiber boards and carbon comp resistors a little extra solder heat could ruin an amp forever. So it really could be a sacrifice on the part of the amp owner.

Chuck

[Steve Conner]

The idea was, of course, to take the "great tone" reputation, and reverse engineer it into information about what made those circuits sound good.

Assuming you could find a particular amp that had a consensus on it that it sounded good. I don't think there is such a thing as a consensus in the guitar world, how can there be when it contains both B.B. King and Dimebag Darrell?

My own personal feeling is that they would all sound fine in spite of the 20% tolerance, and it would be just another Emperor's New Clothes thing. 20% is less than 3dB.

[R.G.]

Assuming you could find a particular amp that had a consensus on it that it sounded good. I don't think there is such a thing as a consensus in the guitar world, how can there be when it contains both B.B. King and Dimebag Darrell?

My own personal feeling is that they would all sound fine in spite of the 20% tolerance, and it would be just another Emperor's New Clothes thing. 20% is less than 3dB.

That presumes that the real motivation is the stated motivation.

Thought experiment time. What would you do if you wanted to *dis*prove that a magically-toned amp was different? Since all listeners would likely disagree, as you note, then you would measure it in detail, perhaps several of them.

You could then replicate the component values and see if they sound the same. They would, of course, not sound the same because the speaker is a huge variation. You'd then test the replicated amp with the same speaker to see if the replicated circuit sounded the same though the speaker.

A few of these would either prove that (a) the magic's in the circuit or (b) the magic's in the speaker. If it's in both, you at least have a way to pry out what's good in the circuit while you look for magic speakers. If they're all different, you've proved that there are magic speakers but not magic amp circuits.

And those would be some useful findings. To me at least.

[Chuck H]

20% is less than 3dB.

Sure, if it's only one or two resistors we're talking about. But it's 40% variance here (+/- 20%). That amount of variation possible with ALL the resistors in an amp could mount up. If you went to either extreme and had one amp with all the resistors 40% lower in value than another otherwise identical amp don't you think there would be a significant audible difference?

Chuck

[stokes]

While I agree with the theory that "reverse engineering" a vintage amp would give a lot of insight as to what is going on and why a certain vintage amp sounds better than the same amp that didnt sound as good,I have to point out,that I have yet to find a bad sounding vintage amp that couldnt be coaxed into sounding good with much more than a tube,bias and speaker adjustment.That is assuming there was nothing totally fried in the amp in the first place.Quite often that 5E3 Tweed sounds like rat shit,simply because of the JJ or Sovtek tubes or the less than ideal speaker.

[jrfrond]

Quite often that 5E3 Tweed sounds like rat shit,simply because of the JJ or Sovtek tubes or the less than ideal speaker.

Rat shit is in the ears of the beholder.

[Chuck H]

Rat shit is in the ears of the beholder.

And dead guys.

[stokes]

Rat shit is in the ears of the beholder.

What is your point?

[R.G.]

While I agree with the theory that "reverse engineering" a vintage amp would give a lot of insight as to what is going on and why a certain vintage amp sounds better than the same amp that didnt sound as good,I have to point out,that I have yet to find a bad sounding vintage amp that couldnt be coaxed into sounding good with much more than...

That being said, you will find people who insist that *their* vintage amp sounds magically better than others which have been equally tuned up. The difference is not between unloved, neglected examples and newly tweaked ones, but between two loved, cared-for ones. Those are the differences you're looking for.

[Steve Conner]

That being said, you will find people who insist that *their* vintage amp sounds magically better than others which have been equally tuned up.

And there could well be no physical basis to that at all. They own it, they're emotionally involved with it, of course they're going to think it sounds great. You could secretly swap it for another amp that looked the same, and see if the owner ever notices.

In the DIY hi-fi speaker world, they say no speaker ever sounds as good as one you built yourself, and I think this is a perfect example of the kind of psychology I'm talking about.

[tedmich]

how did I miss this, The Amazing Randi has taken some time off of debunking psychics to fire a shot over the bow of Audiophiles:
James Randi’s Swift - September 28, 2007

I love that guy! And his $1M prize would buy a bunch of high end cables and Bybeetech quantum purifiers...

Also check this discussion:
James Randi Calls Out Audiophile: I'm Sure the Crickets Will Sound Fantastic - Boing Boing Gadgets

which includes a priceless link on how the Sony PS doubles as an audiophile CD player, but only when allowed to warm up for 3 days...!?

[jrfrond]

What is your point?

Just pointing out that one person's rat shit is another's filet mignon. Everyone hears differently, which is why recommendations of tubes, speakers, caps, resistors, etc. is so assinine. Not ONLY does everyone hear differently, but many hear what they WANT to hear.

Audiophiles??? Sorry, but it's a whole new brand of stupid. I was the factory service manager and tech for Tandberg back in the 80's for a few years, and dudes, am telling you that audiophiles are from another galaxy. They all think they have it figured out. Next worse are the audiophile designers. As far as I am concerned, they can take their pricey caps, silver wire and esoteric designs and shove 'em!

[Prairie Dawg]

how did I miss this, The Amazing Randi has taken some time off of debunking psychics to fire a shot over the bow of Audiophiles:
James Randi’s Swift - September 28, 2007

I love that guy! And his $1M prize would buy a bunch of high end cables and Bybeetech quantum purifiers...

Also check this discussion:
James Randi Calls Out Audiophile: I'm Sure the Crickets Will Sound Fantastic - Boing Boing Gadgets

which includes a priceless link on how the Sony PS doubles as an audiophile CD player, but only when allowed to warm up for 3 days...!?

Hmmmm.....Jupiter cryo beeswax. A .02/600 is only about $24.